Search results

This article analyses how the MONDRAGON Group has overcome the barriers that the literature identifies in the creation of employee owned companies (Mygind and Poulsen, 2021), and how it has managed to grow over the last few decades.

To this end, based on an analysis of the legislative framework and the internal documentation of the MONDRAGON Group and its cooperatives, the case of what is often considered the most successful and highly developed network of co-operative firms is studied.

The study leads us to conclude that MONDRAGON has had sufficient capacity to overcome the barriers faced by worker-owned companies and has known how to adapt to the economic and social demands of each moment, despite the fact that at certain times it has had to act flexibly in its principles.

The work is limited to the analysis of the Group's internal documentation. It would be interesting to complement this vision with the perceptions of MONDRAGON's partners.

The MONDRAGON Group's study can show other cooperative experiences what the keys to success are.

MONDRAGON has been analysed from different perspectives, but how it has overcome the specific barriers presented by employee-owned companies has not been specifically studied. This perspective makes it possible to identify some of the group's success factors.

Investigates has worker co‐operatives undertake their marketing activities and the ways in which they differ from conventional businesses. States that marketing activities of the traditional wholesale or retail co‐operative movement are not of concern here. Notes that there has been a marked increase in the number of worker co‐operatives since the 1970s. Suggests that they will only survive it they arm to meet the needs of their customer groups better than their competitors rather than giving precedence to their social objectives.

The Social Enterprise Mark (SEM) is claimed to be the first award that guarantees to the public that an organisation is a social enterprise. To date, there has been limited discussion of its conceptual dimensions and legitimacy. This paper seeks to make a contribution to knowledge by critically discussing its conceptual dimensions and exploring its impact.

This exploratory study uses feedback from participants on open access co‐operative and social enterprise workshops. They were asked to study published SEM criteria then rank ideal types of social enterprise activity (a worker co‐operative, a trading charity and a self‐employed consultant) in order of likelihood of obtaining the SEM.

Workshop participants from different backgrounds drew the conclusion that SEM criteria favour trading charities and community interest companies with social and environmental objects, not enterprises that deliver social benefits through transforming labour relations and wealth sharing. Participants reacted to their own deliberations differently depending on their sectoral affiliation.

Attempts by the academic community to define the social enterprise sector have run into linguistic and practical problems. Definitions tend to privilege one group of social enterprises over another. The arrival of the SEM in the UK takes place amidst these conceptual and practical difficulties.

The SEM criteria contribute to social constructions of social enterprise that favour “social purpose” enterprises that explicitly target a beneficiary group or community, and not “socialised” enterprises that transform labour relations, promote participative democracy, and design new wealth sharing arrangements.

The paper suggests there has been a shift away from the co‐operative values advanced by the founders of the UK social enterprise movement. To secure legitimacy, the paper proposes changes to the SEM to re‐establish the conceptual alignment of social enterprise and the social economy.

Co‐operative Learning is one of the major process aspects of the Diploma in Education Management course at Sheffield City Polytechnic. It is not part of the cognitive content of the course but it is central to the underlying philosophy of the course. Indeed most management courses (and other courses) would I believe benefit from using the concept of co‐operative learning more explicitly. Our experiences in this area may be useful to others who have not considered it in quite the same way. Before describing how the process developed — a word of warning. Our experience is not a blueprint for others. Co‐operative learning is a dynamic idea. Each learning group is different from every other learning group. The direction which co‐operative learning takes, will and should vary from group to group. However our experience considered within these constraints may help others to foster co‐operative learning more effectively.

With the publication of a White Paper in October 1977, the Prime Minister and the Government have signalled their intention of setting up a new Co‐operative Development Agency at an early date. Assuming that the report's detailed recommendations are followed, then one of the main tasks of the new CDA will be to ‘identify, promote and encourage viable projects to be undertaken on a co‐operative basis.’ At least for the life of this government, support for new co‐operative enterprises seems likely to form part of official policy. The aim of this article is to contribute to this wider re‐opening of the debate about whether co‐operative production offers a practical middle way between private capitalist and state‐owned business. By co‐operative production I mean a system under which the ultimate control and ownership of an enterprise rests not with outsiders — whether private capitalists or state bureaucrats — but with all those working in it. What I shall attempt to argue is that such enterprises, if they are correctly structured, if they enjoy fully professional management, and if they enjoy adequate access to capital and markets, do indeed offer a practical and even a promising third way.

Co-operative managers must invest appropriately to strengthen member relationships, such as by initiating corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions or providing members with more relational benefits. This paper aims to investigate how members’ motives (collectivistic vs individualistic) might influence the effectiveness of these investments in terms of enhancing members’ trust and loyalty intentions.

This research combines an exploratory approach, based on six focus groups, with a confirmatory approach based on a field study and two scenario-based experiments.

Members tend to regard the two motives in contest and infer a “more CSR versus more benefits” arbitration effort by co-operatives, such that they appear to prioritize one motive over the other. Members with individualistic motives principally support co-operatives’ arbitration toward relational benefits, so the positive effects of CSR initiatives on their trust and loyalty intentions are weaker (Study 1). Both CSR and relational benefits can be more or less efficient, depending on members’ motives (Study 2).

Reflecting their contrasting motives, members infer arbitration by co-operative managers, reflected in their “more CSR versus more benefits” belief. This insight and the related implications for trust and loyalty intentions have not been addressed in prior research.

Managers can avoid the negative consequences of “more CSR versus more benefits” inferences by ensuring a good fit between their investments and their members’ prevailing motives. If members have more collectivistic (cf. individualistic) motives, CSR initiatives (cf. relational benefits) enhance their trust and loyalty intentions more effectively.

This research builds on previous work on members’ relationships within co-operatives and on members’ motives. Results find that the effectiveness of co-operatives’ investments to strengthen members’ loyalty intentions depends on members’ prior motives.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of regional responsibility and to provide a deeper understanding of customer‐owned co‐operatives and their social embeddedness.

First, extant conceptions of corporate social responsibility are discussed, concentrating on two approaches; the one employing stakeholder theory and the one employing resource‐based view of the firm. Second, co‐operatives as a form of economic organization that have a natural interest in engaging in regionally‐oriented corporate social responsibility practices are studied, including active participation in regional strategy processes and local and regional development. Finally, the concept of regional responsibility is illustrated by analysing qualitative data.

Regional responsibility is in the core of customer‐owned co‐operatives' CSR. Co‐operatives are tentative to their customer‐owners, employees and other regional stakeholders. Regional responsibility also means the utilization of the region's resources and advocacy of local interests. In fact, co‐operatives may be considered as ‘flagship enterprises’ in their regions, promoting the businesses of the whole network of economic actors linked to them. Co‐operatives engage also in non‐business related activities to support the surrounding community.

While this study helps to understand regional responsibility of customer‐owned firms, as such the findings are limited to the context of this study.

The paper analyzes co‐operatives' social responsibility from a regional perspective and introduces the concept of “regional responsibility”.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the historical basis of development of corporate social responsibility and the impact of this on co‐operative enterprises and member‐owned businesses.

This is a viewpoint identified by years of experience dealing with co‐operative organisations.

The paper finds that the basis of development of corporate social responsibility from the perspective of commercial corporations does not promote an adequate accounting framework for co‐operative enterprises and member‐owned businesses.

Practitioners in different areas of business are trying to make sense of sustainability accounting and reporting in a commercial setting. This piece by one of these, draws on a topical initiative around co‐operative enterprises to raise questions around what is meant by performance in the context of member‐owned enterprises and whether the field of corporate social responsibility has overlooked the relevance of ownership in terms of organisational incentives for action.

The author proposes a series of definitions for co‐operative performance, which are designed to underpin metrics that relate to “member value”. This is offered in contrast to “shareholder value” for companies that, unlike co‐operatives, are owned by external shareholders.

The field of corporate social responsibility is a major user and innovator of the tools and techniques for sustainability accounting and reporting. But it tends to be silent on ownership. However, if different models of ownership create different incentives for action on sustainable development, then rather than just accounting for “how” an enterprise operates, however it is owned and led, there may be value in tools to test “whether” an institution is fit for purpose in its fundamental design.

The paper develops a new perspective and future research opportunities in identifying performance measures for co‐operative enterprises.

This paper aims to examine the role that the co‐operative sector can play in responding to the needs and aspirations of older people. In addition, through recounting the Change AGEnts co‐operative journey, it seeks to demonstrate that co‐operative principles have the potential to reconfigure services and change the existing negative narrative on which much public sector commissioning and provision is based.

Change AGEnts is the legacy organisation that came out of the Better Government for Older People's Programme (BGOP), 1998‐2009. The journey from a government sponsored initiative (Cabinet Office) to an independent co‐operative illustrates the opportunities and challenges inherent in taking forward the coalition's present policy intentions of promoting co‐ownership of services, localism and building co‐operative communities.

Co‐operative approaches empower both professional and older people, through common ownership and mutuality. The experience of forming a co‐operative and becoming part of the co‐operative movement, has the potential to completely change the relationship between older people and the state.

The paper illustrates that deliberation and dialogue has a powerful part to play within the co‐operative movement, through increasing the control of older people in policy and practice outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the accountability practices of the directors in New Zealand and Australian dairy co-operatives. An interpretation of their practices, which focus on the relationship between directors and their farmer-shareholders, is informed by Roberts’ (2001a) understandings of a socializing accountability.

The fieldwork consists of interviews with 23 directors, including all chief executive officers and chairmen, of six dairy co-operatives together with observations and document analysis. These co-operatives together comprise a significant portion of the regional dairy industry. The methodology draws from Eisenhardt’s (1989) qualitative approach to theory formation.

The authors find that these directors engage in a discourse-based, community-grounded and egalitarian form of socializing accountability. As such, their practices adhere generally to Roberts (2001a) hopes for a more considerate and humble relationship between an accountor and an accountee.

Findings add to the small pool of research on the lived experiences of co-operative boards and to a parsimonious literature in socializing accountability practices. The contributions of the study are in advancing real understandings of alternative forms of accountability, in evaluating the conditions in which these alternatives may be likely to arise and in anticipating the challenges and opportunities that arise therefrom.

The originality of the project arises from accessing the views of these industry leaders and, through their frank expressions, coming to understand how they achieve a form of a socializing accountability in their relationships with farmer-shareholders.